So basically you take a book where several parts you yourself have discredited and claim that one verse is the basis of why your faith is better than all the others. And can you please explain why God allows these branches and other religions to survive. Until you stop skirting around this issue we can't continue this discussion.
ME discrediting the Bible? You should read this topic better. Why does God allow other branches to exist? Because Him coming and revealing Himself will actually be then end of time, and after that no one could ever change a thing. So He allows us to think for ourselves and find Him. By the way, there are good people in almost all of the Christian branches, and they will certainly be saved regardless of branch.
And can you please just answer me this question. Why does your God exist and the Invisible Pink Unicorn not? What reason is there for your God to exist over Allah?
Since you don't believe in miracles, you will not believe me. IPU hasn't given a single sign of its existance, while God was with Israeli people for 40 years straight, and did not leave them alone even when they have strayed. BTW, Christ resurrected. This alone is the sign of God to be real. About Allah - Mohammed took Old Testament as basis for Quran, therefore this name belongs to the very same God that is my God the Father. I'd rather stop discussing anything with you from now on, unless you will also tell me, how is mass media not brainwashing.
Krishna and stuff belong to the IPU category, there are no miracles that can prove their existance.
I did already, must have gotten buried but I said various greek and roman sources and not the jewish tribes.
Hmm. This topic grows too fast to watch for the entirety of changes. Though I often see some of my questions left unanswered as well. There should be some sources in the Babylonian cunei tables about Jews being under their reign, and there should be sources about at least Paul's case when he got beaten and then went up to Caesar to protect his beliefs. Much, though, could have gone with Nero burning ROMe. I might try a research of this, but I'm by no means a historian.
As for the Catholic church, the reason the Protestant movement occurred was them protesting the church's abuses and granting themselves powers the bible does not endorse.
The sacrament of confession is not mentioned at all in the bible for starters.
About confession - Jn 20:21-23. Explanation is as follows: Christ being God did not need the sinner to profess his sins, since He can see into one's heart. Priests can't directly see into a person's heart, so the profession of one's sins is required to absolution of them. But the priest is acting as a mediator between the confessing sinner and Jesus, who gave them power to abolish sins, and it's His grace which cleans the soul of one attending confession.
About Church abuses - yes indeed, there were abuses with indulgences and crusades at least, currently we claim these abuses as sins, though we can't say anything definite about those who committed such sins - no one is forbidden repentance.
Someone quite aware of what the Bible depicts claiming to see these things? Clearing the Bible could not have had any influence on such visions.
Dodging detected.
When does this happen?
Right before they have been cast away, that's why God promised a savior for people by that time.
The existence of numerous translations, the existence of dozens of omitted gospels...
Did people change the wordings in the canon, at least after 387 when the first solid Church-wide canon was developed? Translations can and should be reviewed of course, and anyway one can always refer to Septuagint and Latin-English dictionary. About omitted gospels - like what? Several of then are of gnostic origin, therefore false, several are altered versions of the four canonical gospels, therefore has to be reviewed (and they were, the result was that the authors made alterations themselves instead of "uncovering" Jesus's words - dispute seems to be open again), several are "infancy gospels" that were assimilated into Church tradition. I am aware that the canon was unstable in the early Church years, however all four Gospels were canon from the start.
God, the deceiver.
(KJV)
What's KJV, first? And second, neither quote from the Bible should be read as a single ripped-off statement. Say, Ezekiel 14:9 spoke about false prophets who did not receive their word from God. 2 Chronicles and 1 Kings spoke the same. Do check the context prior to posting.
